Sharing the campaign with Library or Archive partners in your community, and asking them to support it (We can include them as official partners during the week, if their social media team help share the campaign)

Preparing or encouraging others to write blog posts and social media for the Wikipedia 15 conversation focused on libraries and Wikipedia

@BrillLyle: Per Phoebe's comment below, we are trying to keep the instructions as simple as possible, so it takes ~15-20 minutes to complete the activity. As of right now, I am questioning that speed of learning-> implement. What would be useful, is tweaks for spead/clarification of the existing story. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Astinson (WMF): If this is a quick training then the PowerPoint I created is obviously too detailed, but if there is a resources section it might be a helpful tool. I don't have any other materials or suggestions -- was only providing this as a resource for editors who might need a quick brushup on the RefToolbar implementation. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@BrillLyle: The audience for this event might be a bit too broad. This seems like a great thing to be sharing with the cultural-partners list: people who are more active on Wiki, in organizing these kinds of tools. Do you have a documentation page other than the category? It would be great to have both a process, and some sample outcomes sharable with WIRs and other volunteers and professionals coordinating impact for GLAMs, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Astinson (WMF): Agree this is not the audience for this tool; however, again, if there are librarians at GLAM institutions who would like to create these templates, that connection would be invaluable. Each template has a really good set of documentation built into it. I was going to do a Lightning Talk PowerPoint summarizing the typical steps -- although each template can be very different. And as you said above, this is too detailed for this project, so I'm not sure if it would be helpful at this point. I have not had much engagement from other editors in creating these templates although I have tried to reach out to fellow editors and institutional stakeholders. Once the template is made the institutions seem happy but I'm sure the templates are under-deployed. As we have held Wikipedia editathons here in New York City, I've been creating them for each institution, with the only constraint being if their digital assets are set up with unique identifiers in the URLs. As far as event outcomes I don't have sample outcomes beyond listing them in the outcomes of the event pages. I listed this here because it's very library/institution/GLAM friendly and this project seems to dovetail a bit to the templates. Agree it would be great to increase engagement as the templates are very powerful. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I love this! We might want a slightly slimmed down set of directions to link to on social media -- perhaps a 1-pager with pictures. The other thing that would be useful is a "what makes a good source" section -- I can work on this. -- phoebe | talk 18:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Phoebe: This is very first drafty, I would welcome a one pager before the push in January (feel free to use the TWL OWL liberally). Let me know if you have any other thoughts/ideas, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, a big page with 1, 2, 3 and some social media stuff and a lot less "watch our video" and a lot less "here is the history of this initiative and Wikipedia generally". I feel like you're trying to do a lot of things with this page and your hearts are in the right place but if you want people to help, reduce the friction considerably and make it fun. Maybe you need two pages? I'm happy to help (not just shoot my mouth off) but wanted to make sure I ran it by everyone first. Jessamyn (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Jessamyn and Phoebe: I would be happy to see these design changes: that is part of the reason we started sharing it a month out! Please do make the design changes! Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

What does "Signing up to be a help contact in the "Contact a library leader" section" entail? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Sorry for the slow response: we are just trying to get some community members, who can answer questions or respond to queries in their local region. We aren't putting firm rules on what this means, so feel free to forward anything you don't think is appropriate onto our central contact tools (me, the wikipedialibrary@wikimedia adress, or twitter). I imagining we might get some press from this, so that might be useful, or I will use that list to refer to people for guest blog posts -- we have gotten a half dozen asks so far.

Hello! We are holding an editathon at Johns Hopkins Today for #1Lib1Ref and our IP addresses and Usernames are being blocked. Help!

Hi, can someone prepare the page for multilingual translations? I've never used the TNT template and don't know how to manage it, but I do want to translate this page into Catalan language. Thanks in advance!--Kippelboy (talk) 11:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Kippelboy, I can set it up, but we should get the text locked down before we make a translatable version. Jessamyn and others have made some improvements, so I think we're close. The Interior (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

However, we had trouble with the template - it was transcluding all the translation markup, and we couldn't figure out why. We've taken it out for now, but here's the version that was breaking: [1]. Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the translating template, it seems like I messed up with the sidebar template, I want to make the chinese version to have the zh sidebar however I can only edit the english version's sidebar and it makes the translated version remains in english sidebar... --Liang(WMTW) (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, the project's title: it's localisable on the main page, but it's in English on subpages (Help and Participate). Halibutt (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Done for both, concerning captions and page titles. Concerning the image itself, it is a little bit more complicated. If you have any idea about how to deal with that, please ping me Halibutt. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Trizek (WMF):, thanks!. As to the images, well, technically in wiki code an image is a link just like any other, so you can simply wrap the entire image code in translate tags, with file name, size in px, caption and whatnot. Say, <translate>[[Image:Somethingsomething.jpg|thumb|right|English caption]]</translate>. Wouldn't this work? I'm pretty sure I did it once on Outreach, or somewhere... Halibutt (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Halibutt, that would work, but that's confusing for a translator. I've seen some people translating everything: <translate>[[Image:Quelquechosequqelquechose.jpg|pouce|droit|Légende en anglais]]</translate> will not work :D

If you think that's fine and you will watch it, let's do that. You can move the tags yourself, I'll then mark the page for translation. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I broke the main page down into four pages and did some chunking of the content and added design elements. All the text should be there with the exception of a few sentences I edited. Please feel free to add in anything you notice is off of missing. Query: is this ilib1ref 2015 or 2016 since we're working on it now but it's taking place in 2016? Jessamyn (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Its 2016! This looks great! I did a bunch of tweaks, and we will probably do some more as we move forward :) Astinson (WMF) (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, let me know if we should move the userbox somewhere. I don't really know how they work but you saw the one that I made. Jessamyn (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Is it worth it having a facebook event that people can rsvp to? I could make one but it might be better if it came from the actual Library account (if there is one) Jessamyn (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we have a WikiLibrary account, and I will make it :) Great idea. Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Reliable: it's a source you'd point a patron to if they wanted to know more.

Secondary: usually secondary sources are better to cite than primary material, except in cases like official census figures.

Actually supports the claim made in the text: the source should back up what is stated. If it doesn't, but is a good general resource for the topic (such as a specialty encyclopedia), consider adding the source to a "further reading" section. If you can't find any supporting source for a claim, remove the claim from the article and add a note to the article talk page about what you removed and your research.

Would love to be part of a debrief, hear what worked and what worked less well. I think it would be good to have some stats assembled that we can use to write summary posts about this. Jessamyn (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Great idea Jessamyn. We're going to work with WMF Communications to use their analytics software for social media stats. Then we need to get the edit summary hashtag search working on non-English languages. After that we will definitely have a debrief. Hopefully in 1 week, but possibly in 2. Meanwhile, there's lots of posts and tweets that would make an excellent "storify-ed" post. Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The debrief we had scheduled was cancelled. I'd still like to be a part of a discussion about how to do something like this in the future Jessamyn (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Ocaasi (WMF). I got pinged, but I have been snowed by pings and did not notice it until now. I believe a massmessage directly to my talk page would get quicker notice from me. I am a massmessage sender if I can assist. Some of these prosposals look fun and viable. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, two weeks ago I created a 1Lib1Ref manual & call-to-action in Dutch. I tried to keep this manual as simple, to-the-point, visual and instructive as possible. The main reason was that I found the Dutch 1Lib1Ref info page rather confusing. I'm afraid that if I show this 'incrowd' page to un-initiated (into the Wikip/media world) librarians, they would be discouraged to take part in the action. I think it's already difficult enough for most 'normal' people to add a reference to WP

Although I'm primarily focusing on the participation of Dutch librarians, I'm willing to translate 'my simple' manual into English. Would that be helpful? Would it be (re-)used?

A question that has come up in the libraries we engage with is about getting regional statistics, as libraries participating in an initiative generally need to report on it (to justify participation) and would like to know how many 1lib1ref updates occurred in their "local area". What statistics will be available and when will they be available? Thanks Kerry Raymond (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kerry Raymond: Unfortunately, for regional questions: people have to opt in to a tracking tool, or creating some kind of recording page on wiki (or use a secondary hashtag for example, you could support folks using the #queensland hashtag if you are trying to track contributions in that region/topic area). Our privacy policy doesn't allow for exposing that kind of user information, especially when folks are signed in (IP addresses are exposed for not logged in users). Astinson (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe they are looking for user names or statistics at the user level. It would be nice to be able to provide simple counts at the Australian and Australian state levels. If we want partnerships with the GLAM sector, we need to take their needs into account and being able to report on some kind of KPI is important part of that. Kerry Raymond (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you point me at the tracking tools? I suspect many of those involved would be willing if it helped provide the stats. Kerry Raymond (talk) 08:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Astinson (WMF): I have a 1Lib1Ref session in 2 hours. Can I please get an answer to the question about tracking tools? We are now in Week 2. If this is the only way to gather data, I need to start promulgating it now. Kerry Raymond (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Kerry. Sorry was gone over the weekend. You could use the Programs and events dashboard: https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/ . That would provide sufficient support for if you have a known cohort of folks (and you can add their names retroactively). However, its not very useful when you have folks who are also hardcore Wikimedians (because all of their other contributions get lost). That is why we are using the hashtags tracking for the campaign: tools.wmflabs.org/hashtags/search/1lib1ref . Astinson (WMF) (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

We do not have a known cohort. When you do outreach to a room of people and blog posts and the like, you have no idea what the user names are. Hence the desire for regional data. We do not need data on a user-level so there is no privacy issue. Alternatively, can we get data on edit summaries with the 1lib1ref tag AND which are on articles within Category:Australia (and its closure) and for Category:Queensland (and its closure). Ditto for other states. That must be do-able. Then at least we can report improvements to Australian/Queensland content as a statistic. I note that WMF is always asking us for KPIs; please help us get them. Kerry Raymond (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to be cautious, I manually reverted my edit then previewed the page again, and the error persisted. Sorry all I can do is point this out. Hope this is helpful, and thank you for all your hard work! —Geekdiva (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

However, I believe that someone reading the page in another language will likely be more interested in knowing how many "citation needed" statements and how many articles don't have any references... in Wikipedia in that language, not in English. Likewise, the link to w:Category:Articles lacking sources should also be changed to the corresponding category in Wikipedia in the target language.

Is there a general policy on the translation of statistics? Should the (Anglo-centric) information on statistics in pages in English be merely translated (maintaining its Anglo-centrism, just in another language), or should it be fully adapted to the target language? Sabbut (talk) 10:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sabbut: Sorry for not responding to this sooner. Yes, please do adapt it for the target language in the translation layer. We want each language/geographic community to . I will make sure that that is shared more thoroughly with campaign organizers next year, when we do it again. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, I just changed the relevant part in the Spanish translation. Sabbut (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

When do we have any project outcomes? I'm gonna be nagged very soon for the GLAMwiki newsletter for February amongst other things and I want to have something to say. What was final count? Can we please at least get the list of edits with the hashtag? Kerry Raymond (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I downloaded the CSV of the edits, but I am a bit confused. The CSV seems to have one edit per row, but there appear to be 5642 rows in the CSV file, which seems to suggest more than 4,171 edits. What am I missing here? Kerry Raymond (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kerry Raymond: Yeah, it can be confusing. The CSV and the tool includes hashtags from last year's campaign and hashtags after the campaign. But the results (4,171) were the edits made from 3 January 2017 to 3 February 2017, not including edits made before or after the time frame. Hope that helps. Regards—UY ScutiTalk 17:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. I see a problem though in the date fields, there appear to be two different formats which is making sorting by date difficult. Why is that? I'm trying to find the edits made in certain date/time ranges corresponding to specific events we held. Also, did the query that collected these edits search for #1lib1ref or did it also allow 1lib1ref (without the #)? I ask because I saw some edit summaries on my watchlist that did not include the #. Kerry Raymond (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kerry Raymond: I'm not sure why they are in different formats. Maybe Astinson (WMF) or Ocaasi (WMF) can help? And about the hashtag '#', the tool indexes only the edits that include '#'. Also, I'm not sure if there's a tool to search for edits with a particular phrase/word i.e. without the hashtag. Regards—UY ScutiTalk 14:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

How about listing ideas for identifying or new-building some tools that could speed up this sort of thing? Some starters below:LeadSongDog (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Each edition page found on the Open Library has a "Download catalog record" list that shows a "Wikipedia citation" link (as well as RDF, JSON, ond OPDS formats). A tool (perhaps a bookmarklet?) could conceivably be built to feed that information into a search of WP for articles on matching subjects, where they contain either unlinked "Bibliography" sections or "citation needed" and "unreferenced" tags. This would be particularly beneficial for long-stable topic areas, as any available PD fulltext could then be just clicks away for content editors.

Within a WP article, the pool of cited books will tend to have a cluster of similar Dewey- and LC-classes, so tagging the article accordingly could help source hunters to find other (perhaps better) books on the same topic. Likewise it would help someone with a specific book in hand to find articles that could benefit from citing that book.

Many works, or even editions, are cited in many articles, but often incompletely. Very often there is no linked catalogue entry (no ISBN, OCLC, OL, or any other identifier), making it one notch harder for a reader to know if the source even exists. A tool able to list all WP articles where a specific work is cited would facilitate diffusion of such more-complete metadata out to the articles.

Wikidata gathers metadata on cited works which could be used by a tool to fill in missing parameters in incomplete templated citations

I see that dates for 2018 have been announced on this page without any prior discussion. I thought I had explained that January is the Australian summer school holidays (and probably affects summer holiday season in the entire southern hemisphere). This means that there are a lot of librarians on holidays, meaning the libraries are running on skeleton staff levels. Also, a lot of the chapter volunteers will also be on family holidays and unavailable to work with the libraries. Can we please have a conversation involving libraries and chapters about the best date? Kerry Raymond (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Kerry Raymond: Hey, I hope you have seen the updates to dates! Unfortunately, the main English/European campaign has a fair amount of Energy around it at this time of year. It might be something to update/change when the Wikipedia & Library User Group becomes a more fundamental organizer role in the coming years (and you should definitely be on the committee helping work on that). In the meantime, I know several communities in Latin America plan on running a campaign in midyear, which is going to be coordinated by WM Argentina! We are completely okay with folks iterating on and expanding the impulse of the campaign, but the social media support is only really available during this time of year by the WMF team. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Astinson (WMF): What updates to dates? All we've had as guidance for our planning was this page. And I did explain months ago why it was a bad time of year for us and yet we were not included in part of any conversation about this year's dates, despite being such a large contributor (if "energy" is the criteria for having your views considered, then I think we out-energised a lot of other people). @Halibutt: can you please explain on what information you set the dates for this year's program and why you did not consider our request from last year for a better timeframe that took into account the summer holidays in the southern hemisphere. Thanks Kerry Raymond (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kerry Raymond and Astinson (WMF):, a misunderstanding I guess. While updating the translation I noticed that the date said 2017, even though January 2017 is already way behind us, so I assumed someone updating the page before me made a simple mistake and forgot to update the year. Feel free to revert me. But then again, we were working on an assumption that the 1Lib1Ref would start around the same time of year as the last time here in Poland. I'd be fine with any other time of year probably, but we'd have to decide something fast. Halibutt (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Halibutt and Astinson (WMF): Your edit gave me and presumably lots of other people the impression the dates were fixed for 2018, despite requests for different dates. Why were you working on the assumption about the same time as last year when the southern hemisphere countries had asked for other dates? When and where is/was this conversation to take place since it appears the dates have not yet been set? Kerry Raymond (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kerry Raymond and Astinson (WMF):, quite simply the first action took place around Wikipedia's birthday, the second one in 2016 - as well. I found it safe to assume that the date is pretty much fixed and that someone updating the page before me simply forgot to update the year. And the reason I was updating the Polish translation in the first place is that I was contacted by a couple of librarians who would like to take part in the drive this time and they too were pretty sure it starts around January 15. I wasn't aware that the dates are problematic for the Southern Hemisphere. Halibutt (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kerry Raymond and Halibutt: We had been planning to do the campaign at the same time of year since at least mid-year, we firmed up the dates at the same time that @Halibutt: actually updated the dates and sent out updates via several of the GLAM/Libraries mailing lists and contact lists we had for the campaign. I want to apologize for not doing a date consultation this year; we heard your feedback, Kerry, at Wikimania about the Southern Hemisphere, but were not in a position to reschedule in our capacity for supporting the campaign this year. Wikimedia Argentina and Wikimedia Mexico, plan on running a Latin American campaign in Spanish during May or June 2017: the main contact for that is @Giselle Bordoy (WMAR):. #1lib1ref can be repurposed and reused by many different communities, in many different settings as they need. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Astinson (WMF): You did not hear about our concerns for the first time at Wikimania. I raised the issue of the dates by email to you on 26 January 2017, and you replied on 27 January 2017 discussing the date issue so clearly you were aware of fromm then. I reminded you at Wikimania of our email conversation and you appeared to acknowledge our concerns. I will forward you the emails from 26/27 January 2017 or you can check your own email archives. Kerry Raymond (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘ I always had the impression that the #1Lib1Ref drive should be organised more often. If you decide to run it again in (our) summer - count me in :) Halibutt (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Halibutt: Agreed: We don't feel like the main campaign (which celebrates the Wikipedia birthday), needs to be the only campaign: #1lib1ref is an idea that can travel throughout the movement and should be used as a platform for discussing the role of Wikipedia and Libraries. We saw events throughout the year during the last two years, which take up the call of #1lib1ref. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to delete a translated version of this page (and related pages)?

The reason I'm asking this, is because of how the translate function works. Once the English version gets updated, the Dutch (and other language versions) are outdated and will be marked in red. Also, the sidebar with the owl-logo and some additional links remains in English, meaning that even a completely translated page still contains parts in another language. This just doesn't look professional, and in this case I would prefer to not have a translation at all and just go with the English version.

Hey @AWossink: Huh that is interesting! We have done most of the updates that should be happening to the pages: do you think you can do the updates now? I am okay with deletion, but am not very familiar with the process on meta: Meta:Deletion_policy, Astinson (WMF) (talk)

@Astinson: I think last year minor changes in the EN text were made during or just before the campaign as well, and if that happens, translated texts immediately turn red. Also, last year, the sidebar couldn't be translated, meaning that you have English and Dutch text on the same page, which also doesn't look good. I need to look at this a little bit better, but for now we might also go with a page on Dutch WP. To be continued! --AWossink (talk) 08:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, as 1lib1ref.org is directing to this page, and as I assume most people looking for information on this event will be interested to know where it happens (rather than how to organize something myself), don't you think it would be interesting that the link "Check out who is participating and add your organization" could be more visible on this page, maybe using some kind of fancy button or something like that ? At least extracting it from inside the text where it is hidden unless you read all the speech. Symac (talk) 10:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Symac: thats a great idea. We tried to highlight participating organizations more the last few years, but it proved very hard to manage and rerpesent participation in the on-wiki space. @Jessamyn: Have you thought about this more? I know its something you were looking into. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Since librarians are (generally) paid editors, in theory they will be disclosing this as per the terms of use. As disclosing in individual edit summaries or on individual talk pages is tedious beyond belief, anyone with any sense will disclose on their user page. But any form of disclosure requires the employer to be revealed. So, what I would suggest is that you search for the 1lib1ref tagged edit summaries and go look on their user page to find the employer. If you don't see any employer there, you could mention in the User Talk about the need to disclose paid editing and try to get them to disclose this on their user page. It would also be a good idea to put the need for disclosure of paid editing on the 1lib1ref page and any social media promotions etc (because in my experience librarians do not realise the need for paid editor disclosures). It would also be a very good idea to encourage libraries participating as institutions (rather than random individuals) to create an outreach dashboard for their "program" and then to cluster those programs under the overarching campaign #1lib1ref 2018. State Library of Queensland's dashboard is already established here as we commence our program today (before some people go off on their summer holidays -- for the benefit of people living in the northern hemisphere, January is the major summer holiday season in the Southern Hemisphere and hence a very bad time to hold 1lib1ref). So it should be do-able to build a list (albeit probably incomplete) of institutions who may be participating from the 2017 data and from the 2018 data as it rolls in. Also if the list is published in a prominent place, it may encourage people to add (or delete if appropriate) their institution from the list. Kerry Raymond (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, while librarians are often paid professionals, they are not considered 'paid editors' merely while contributing general information or citations. The exception is if they are being paid explicitly to edit Wikipedia to advance an organization's goals or content about their organization. See the FAQ question:

How does this provision affect teachers, professors, and employees of galleries, libraries, archives, and museums ("GLAM")

These requirements shouldn't keep teachers, professors, or people working at galleries, libraries, archives, and museums ("GLAM") institutions from making contributions in good faith! If you fall into one of those categories, you are only required to comply with the disclosure provision when you are compensated by your employer or by a client specifically for edits and uploads to a Wikimedia project. For example, if a professor at University X is paid directly by University X to write about that university on Wikipedia, the professor needs to disclose that the contribution is compensated. There is a direct quid pro quo exchange: money for edits. However, if that professor is simply paid a salary for teaching and conducting research, and is only encouraged by their university to contribute generally without more specific instruction, that professor does not need to disclose their affiliation with the university.

The same is true with GLAM employees. Disclosure is only necessary where compensation has been promised or received in exchange for a particular contribution. A museum employee who is contributing to projects generally without more specific instruction from the museum need not disclose her affiliation with the museum. On the other hand, a Wikipedian in Residence who is specifically compensated to edit the article about the archive at which they are employed should make a simple disclosure that he is a paid Wikipedian in Residence with the archive. This would be sufficient disclosure for purposes of requirement. [emphasis added]

Hope this helps clarify and make the campaign appropriately inviting for librarians! Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

But the question asked related to organisations participating. If the organisation says participate in 1lib1ref and you may do so during your working hours, I think we are crossing that line. Certainly my involvement in running a regular monthly event with librarians during their working hours has seen some of them beaten up over this issue of not declaring their paid editor status, so I take the line that it is much safer to err on the side of declaration where the boundaries are not clear. It is NOT a good user experience to have their contributions deleted and/or their account to be blocked. For salaried people "compensation" isn't done piecemeal ("great lecture Professor X, here's $100") so the example here of directly linking payment to a specific edit isn't a realistic example. Many salaried people operate with goals to be achieved and are not micromanaged at the level of "do this edit". If this interpretation is what is intended (that salaried people do not need to disclose unless under a direct management direction to do a very particular edit), I suggest this needs to be made a lot more explicit and the community suitably informed. 01:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Mmm alot meaning wanted to study and accomplish a goal in my life by doing a "citations" I would like to talk to someone that could help just understand the page and meaning and terms and the subjects. Plz contact me @ [personal information redacted]. Mlepich42 (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)